2025 Season

[nodak651]

18 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

sue their asses...breach of contract!!!

Doubt that... it's black and white that it goes to UND - there's no avenue for anyone to claw it back.  Based on what JDub and GFhokaly said, this is probably what UND wants as they will have the ability to make the changes to the usage agreement that are necessary (and they can retain some of the benefits of 3rd party ownership).  

[fightingsioux4life]

20 minutes ago, nodak651 said:

Doubt that... it's black and white that it goes to UND - there's no avenue for anyone to claw it back.  Based on what JDub and GFhokaly said, this is probably what UND wants as they will have the ability to make the changes to the usage agreement that are necessary (and they can retain some of the benefits of 3rd party ownership).  

The current set up is too complicated and hurts UND more than it helps.

UND should hire the same company that runs the Alerus Center to run REA. Put it into the contract that current REA employees and management are grandfathered in and can keep their jobs if they wish. KEM and the rest of the Engelstad Foundation can deal with the UNDAAF directly like all other donors.

[SIOUXFAN97]

2 hours ago, nodak651 said:

I'd potentially be fine with that if there were a significant shift in the selection process and membership makeup of the REA board and the boards of the related enteties.  For example, keep KEM if she truly is excited and invested in the success of UND athletics as a whole, keep Jody and Bergeron.  Beyond that, imo, board members should be the University President, AD, Deputy AD, a Senior Associate AD, and perhaps someone from the Alumni Foundation.   ALL net Income after setting aside money for the facilities improvement fund should/would also need to go back to UND, as originally intended (and which to my current understanding, isn't happening). 

At the end of the day though, I've got to hope UND takes 2030 as an opportunity to completely overhaul the organisation and operation of UND athletics and the related enteties.  With seperate organizations in the Alumni Foundation (runs champions club), the REA, and UND Athletics, it's got to be a chore to get anything organized quickly and efficiently and effectively when it comes to, essentially, anything..  I really think UND needs to figure out a way to elevate the fundraising arm of the alumni association so it is more effective and in sync with the REA and athletics, especially now at a time when "internal nil" has become a thing.  The REA and the alumni association need to work more closely when it comes to capital planning.  Messaging and Marketing between the three organizations has been lacking for some time now as well... There is a lot of redundency between the REA and UND Athletics admin in areas like marketing and finance.  Do we need two head marketing and finance people between the two organizations, or would we see better results (for less money) if there was a single marketing/finance staff that is a little bit larger and more flexible than what we have now?

I think with the current setup of the REA, I think it's innevitable that employees of each organization will have an us vs them approach to a multitude of potential issues as they relate to power/control/their jobs.  The REA and UND athletics as a whole need to work more closely together for our of our programs to reach their potential, imo.  Splitting so much staff between the two organization is the opposite of the US/WE mentality that is needed, imo.

Even when the 3 organizations are on good terms, there is just too much beuracracy for UND to reach it's potential, imo, because both large and small decisions need to get run up the ladder within 3 different organizations.  How hard must it be for a low level employee to make change when their own boss needs 1 or 2 other organizations to sign off on certain things?     

An example of why I think all of the above is an issue -> the new seating at the Betty.  The bleachers up against the wall suck... it just does.  The REA paid for it, great, and it's good enough for them.  Was our AD truly bought in with the plan and result, or did they compromise because the REA wasn't will to spend more money on a better seating solution?  That practice facility that hasn't been built yet, must UND wait to start fundraising for it because it is part of the REA?  Can UND even build an addition there legally?  What if the REA thinks the current setup is suitable and they don't want to contribute money towards that?  UND has no control or leverage in such a situation.

why the downvote (watch out you might be banned if you use it too much)....your essentially making my point for me....this agreement bt rea, und, and the kem is so convoluted it's crazy...and heavily swayed towards the hockey program??????

[SIOUXFAN97]

1 hour ago, nodak651 said:

Doubt that... it's black and white that it goes to UND - there's no avenue for anyone to claw it back.  Based on what JDub and GFhokaly said, this is probably what UND wants as they will  the ability to make the changes to the usage agreement that are necessary (and they can retain some of the benefits of 3rd party ownership).  

@gfhockey is never wrong....gobc

[jdub27]

4 hours ago, fightingsioux4life said:

The current set up is too complicated and hurts UND more than it helps.

UND should hire the same company that runs the Alerus Center to run REA. Put it into the contract that current REA employees and management are grandfathered in and can keep their jobs if they wish. KEM and the rest of the Engelstad Foundation can deal with the UNDAAF directly like all other donors.

This would be a disaster for multiple reasons and I'm a huge fan of what is now Oakview is doing with the Alerus Center. 

[nodak651]

13 hours ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

why the downvote (watch out you might be banned if you use it too much)....your essentially making my point for me....this agreement bt rea, und, and the kem is so convoluted it's crazy...and heavily swayed towards the hockey program??????

It was a lazy low effort post.  Sure there are some issues with KEM, but the post was pure negativity without adding anything of substance.  I don't think it does any good to constantly post meme's of our biggest donor.  

[fightingsioux4life]

13 hours ago, jdub27 said:

This would be a disaster for multiple reasons and I'm a huge fan of what is now Oakview is doing with the Alerus Center. 

Please explain why?

I seriously want to know your thoughts on this.

[jdub27]

3 hours ago, fightingsioux4life said:

Please explain why?

I seriously want to know your thoughts on this.

Quick answer - The state owning and maintaining buildings usually doesn't end all that well, particularly a high level investment like the REA.
Do you think they would approve the large upgrades that have been done over the last 25 years? And where would the money come from? Is a private donor send 7-8 figures worth of money to upgrade a building they have minimal say in? Are they going to set aside large reserves that are required to maintain the building in the future? See deferred maintenance on buildings across the campuses on state for your answer. 

As for the management of the Alerus Center, they are allowed to try to operate somewhere small loss < breakeven < small profit because its a city owned facility that is used as an economic draw that helps justify it. The REA needs to be run significantly different. Would a UND owned asset have the flexibility to pull off some of the things that the REA is currently able to do because they operate independently from the University?

While there is some overlap with UND/REA staff, it has been streamlined pretty well to eliminate large portions of that over the past 5-10 years.

How things now aren't perfect but large pieces of that can be adjusted on the next round of negotiations. The good definitely outweighs the bad on how things are currently set up and could (and hopefully do) continue to shift even more positive for UND when this is discussed in the near future.

[fightingsioux4life]

1 hour ago, jdub27 said:

How things now aren't perfect but large pieces of that can be adjusted on the next round of negotiations. The good definitely outweighs the bad on how things are currently set up and could (and hopefully do) continue to shift even more positive for UND when this is discussed in the near future.

What "negotiations"? Once the building is turned over to UND in less than 5 years, UND will call the shots, NOT KEM. If you are seriously suggesting that KEM be allowed to continue to call the shots after 2030, then you and I won't ever agree on this issue.

No donor, regardless of who her daddy was, should be able to run UND athletics from their mansion.

[gfhockey]

Look at Jimmy sexton

 

hes single handily is running college football

 

hes ruined Penn state with his iPhone 14

[jdub27]

2 hours ago, fightingsioux4life said:

What "negotiations"? Once the building is turned over to UND in less than 5 years, UND will call the shots, NOT KEM. If you are seriously suggesting that KEM be allowed to continue to call the shots after 2030, then you and I won't ever agree on this issue.

No donor, regardless of who her daddy was, should be able to run UND athletics from their mansion.

That's one route to go. 

I think it's absolutely the wrong for multiple reasons I already listed plus more. But if for some reason it makes people feel better to "stick it to" one of UND's continuously most generous donors in multiple sports because their feelers got hurt for no reason, than yes, you are absolutely correct, we won't agree. 

It's embarrassing how some people continue to feel the need to insult someone who gives so much more to UND across the board than most people realize for reasons unknown. The relationship isn't perfect and UND will have a chance to reset it in a way that benefit them on all sides. But that takes understanding the long game and not holding imaginary grudges. 

[SIOUXFAN97]

2 hours ago, jdub27 said:

That's one route to go. 

I think it's absolutely the wrong for multiple reasons I already listed plus more. But if for some reason it makes people feel better to "stick it to" one of UND's continuously most generous donors in multiple sports because their feelers got hurt for no reason, than yes, you are absolutely correct, we won't agree. 

It's embarrassing how some people continue to feel the need to insult someone who gives so much more to UND across the board than most people realize for reasons unknown. The relationship isn't perfect and UND will have a chance to reset it in a way that benefit them on all sides. But that takes understanding the long game and not holding imaginary grudges. 

as a whole was und's athletic department doing better or worser since REA was built and the REA "agreement" was signed...?

[jdub27]

44 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

as a whole was und's athletic department doing better or worser since REA was built and the REA "agreement" was signed...?

In Division 2 when UND was at the top of the food chain? I feel like the landscape is just slightly different now than it was then... 

Not sure there's any valid comparisons to be made with 25 years ago. You think recruiting at the old REA, Memorial Stadium and the Hyslop would help things? 

[SIOUXFAN97]

15 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

In Division 2 when UND was at the top of the food chain? I feel like the landscape is just slightly different now than it was then... 

Not sure there's any valid comparisons to be made with 25 years ago. You think recruiting at the old REA, Memorial Stadium and the Hyslop would help things? 

how have USD, sdac, ndac done in the same landscape in the last 20 plus years without being beholden to one large donor calling all the shots

[The Sicatoka]

7 hours ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

how have USD, sdac, ndac done in the same landscape in the last 20 plus years without being beholden to one large donor calling all the shots

So go and nuture more donors. 

Hint: what you're doing is quite the opposite
 

PS - Do each of those schools have a conference title in each of the big four (FB, MBB, WBB, VB) in the last 20? How about all four in the same year? Plus a 'natty' in MIH?